Gray Wolf Management in the Contiguous U.S

FACT SHEET

Gray Wolf Management in the Contiguous U.S.

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) once inhabited much of North America, but today occupy a relatively small fraction of their historic range.1 As a large carnivore perceived by many as a threat to public safety and livelihoods, the gray wolf remains one of the most challenging species to manage and conserve in the U.S.2 Large carnivores tend to invoke broad public interest in wildlife management. While this attention often benefits wildlife resources, it also gives rise to social pressures between competing demands to protect wildlife from people, and people and property from wildlife.2 For gray wolves, regional perceptions of unacceptable levels of conflict with humans means that wolf populations will likely never Gray wolves, as apex predators, play a critical role in maintaining the 3 sustainably occupy the majority of their historic range. balance of an ecological community (Credit: USFWS).4 Human-Wolf Conflict Gray Wolf Distribution in Contiguous U.S. In general, human attitudes towards large carnivores are inversely proportional to their abundance.2 As a result, many wolf populations require active management to be tolerated by local residents—often referred to as the social carrying capacity.5 This means that in today’s multiple-use landscapes, wildlife professionals must carefully consider both ecological and social constraints when developing management plans for any wolf population. Consideration of social constraints, however, does not mean abandonment of science. A scientific approach to management involving adaptive components is a pragmatic way to develop and

By the 1930’s wolves were deliberately extirpated from nearly all of the western contiguous U.S. to justify wildlife management decisions in a socio- address social objectives and public concerns6 (Credit: Los Angeles Times).7 ecological system.2 Limitations of the Endangered Species Act In 1974, the gray wolf became an endangered species in the contiguous U.S. under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.8 The ESA has played an essential role in restoring wolves to the Northern Rocky Mountains, Western Great Lakes, and Southwest; but is not the most effective tool for long-term management of biologically-recovered wolf populations. Further conservation and restoration of wolves beyond these three regions will depend upon the localized—and * adaptive—efforts of states and tribes using scientific inquiry, stakeholder collaboration, and persistent public outreach. Status of Gray Wolf Populations in the Contiguous United States Southwest Population Western Great Lakes Northern Rocky Mountain (Mexican Wolf ) Minnesota, Wisconsin, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Location Michigan, and portions of 1 1 1 Washington, Oregon Oklahoma adjacent states

9 9  Habitat and prey loss  Unregulated hunting  Government sponsored predator control programs 10  Government sponsored Pre-ESA  Government sponsored 10 10 predator control programs (1973) predator control programs  Wolves extirpated from 6  Effectively eliminated from  Decreased prey availability 9 region by 1930s U.S. by 1970 9

 Population has rebounded  Captive-bred Mexican wolves 14 and their range has  Reintroduction efforts began reintroduced in 1998. 11 expanded in 19956  Current population remains 12 12  ~3,600 individuals in 2015  At least 1,704 individuals in small ~97 individuals. Present 6 282 packs by 2015 14  Delisted in 2012, but due to a  Status: Endangered Federal court decision were  Status: Delisted due to (excluding nonessential 13 relisted under ESA in 2014 recovery 6 experimental populations;  Status: Endangered 13 see below)

Nonessential Experimental Populations

1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Lower 48-State and Mexico Gray Wolf (Canis Lupis) listing, 7. EleBee, L.I. 2013. Gray wolves’ history and recovery. Los Angeles Times, available at http:// as revised. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Office, Arlington, VA, USA. graphics.latimes.com/towergraphic-la-me-wolves/ (last accessed Jan. 2017). 2. Peek, J., Dale, B., Hristienko, H., Kantar, L., Loyd, K.A., Mahoney, S., Miller, C., Murray, D., Olver, 8. See, Endangered Species Act,16 U.S.C. Sections 1531-1544; Amendments to List of Endangered L., & Soulliere, C. 2012. Management of Large Mammalian Carnivores in North America. The Fish and Wildlife, 37 FR 14678 Wildlife Society Technical Review 12–01: 10. 9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. Proposed Reclassification of the Gray Wolf in the United 3. The Wildlife Society. 2012. Final Position Statement: Wolf Restoration and Management in the States and Mexico. 50 CFR Part 17: 29527–29529 Contiguous United States, available at http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ 10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Gray Wolf Canis lupus, available at https://www.fws.gov/ PS_WolfRestorationandMgmtinUS.pdf midwest/Wolf/aboutwolves/pdf/WolfBiologueDec2011.pdf (last accessed Jan. 2017). 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental Conservation Online System, available at http:// 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Western Great Lakes Distinct Populations Segment of the ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A00D#status (last accessed Jan. 2017). Gray Wolf: 2012-2014 Post Delisting Monitoring Annual Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5. Peyton, R., Bull, P., & Holsman, R. 2007. Measuring the social carrying capacity for gray wolves in Midwest Regional Office, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA. Michigan (pp. 1–35). Lansing, Michigan. 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Gray Wold (Canis lupus): Current population in the United 6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife & States, available at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/WolfPopUS.htm Parks, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Reinstatement of Final Rules for the Gray Wolf in Wyoming Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Confederated Colville Tribes, and the Western Great Lakes in Compliance With Court Orders. 50 CFR Part 17: 9219 Spokane Tribe of Indians, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endan- Fish and Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2016. gered Status for the Mexican Wolf. 50 CFR Part 17: 2488–2512. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2015 Interagency Annual Report. M.D. Jimenez 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Revision to the Regulations for the Nonessential Experi- and S.A. Becker, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601. mental Population of the Mexican Wolf. 50 CFR Part 17: 2512–2567.

See our complete Fact Sheet Series at www.wildlife.org/policy The Wildlife Society - 425 Barlow Place, Suite 200, Bethesda, MD 20814 - [email protected]

Updated: March 2017